پرسش و پاسخ با گلن نیلی-179

I’ve been told if you ask 10 Elliotticians about the future, you’ll get 10 different answers. If so, why and does NEoWave solve this problem?

ANSWER:

What you stated was correct for the first 60 years of Elliott Wave history and was the reason I developed NEoWave. To be truly useful and accurate, Elliott Wave needed substantial upgrading and refining. Most of all, it lacked a comprehensive, rigid, logical foundation. If wave theory is to have ANY validity, its rules must give the practitioner the ability to produce a single wave count and forecast that can be replicated by others. 

In my book Mastering Elliott Wave (in hind sight I should have called it Mastering NEoWave), I address this long-standing problem of Elliott Wave. My book adds so many additional rules and concepts to the wave analysis process that it elevates it out of the realm of supposition and into the realm of science. The three most important concepts of NEoWave, which help to accomplish this goal, are:

1- Logic (a strong correction must produce a future, strong move),

2- Self-defining (a smaller pattern cannot take more price and time than a larger pattern),

3- Self-confirming (strict requirements for post-pattern market behavior determine whether your prior structural analysis was correct – in other words, you do not decided if your analysis is correct, NEoWave RULES help you grade your assessments).

Without these rigid, logical NEoWave rules, analytical chaos ensues creating an environment where every wave analyst has a different count and opinion. With the addition of the above rules to orthodox Elliott Wave, you get NEoWave (that is, a “new” wave theory), which makes it possible to produce wave counts that stand the test of time. For example, in the back of my book Mastering Elliott Wave, there is a wave count projecting the future course of the U.S. stock market for 75 years (that forecast has been accurate for 23 years and still has 52 years to go)!

پرسش و پاسخ با گلن نیلی-178

Sometimes you measure time consumed by a pattern from its highest to lowest point. At other times, you measure from the beginning or end of a pattern. Why?

ANSWER:

The first and best method for measuring time in a pattern is to start at the highest and/or lowest points of the wave segment(s) in question and use that information to project or confirm a future turn. If that measurement proves unreliable, the next-best choice is to measure the time of a pattern from its lowest point – in an uptrend or its highest point in a downtrend – to the actual conclusion of the pattern (even if that conclusion is below a high or above a low). Use that measurement to project or confirm a future turn; if that projection also proves unreliable, your assumption about the pattern forming is probably wrong.

پرسش و پاسخ با گلن نیلی-177

In an expanding triangle, must the time of wave-c be longer than the time of wave-a?

ANSWER:

This may be the shortest response ever given on this service…the answer is YES. For whatever reason, the first leg of any contracting or expanding Triangle must be the most violent leg of that Triangle. When a neutral Triangle is forming, there appears to be some leeway regarding this rule, but it has applied to every expanding and contracting Triangle I’ve ever seen.

پرسش و پاسخ با گلن نیلی-176

Mastering Elliott Wave was written before the internet or automated, computerized trading systems existed. Do such things as “high frequency trading” negatively impact the viability of Wave theory?

ANSWER:

This is an intriguing question. While wave theory categorizes, and attempts to predict, the emotion-driven behavior of crowds, computerized systems are unemotional in their processing of data and their attempted execution of trades. So, theoretically, if only computers were allowed to trade, and if they could program themselves, and if they had endless supplies of cash, it’s possible price action would no longer reflect human behavior so markets could no longer be categorized or predicted using Elliott Wave or NEoWave. 

Fortunately, markets and computers do not exist without people. First, all programs are created by humans who possess specific beliefs, fears, financial limitations and goals which impact the design of an automated system. Second, if a computerized system loses enough money, someone in charge will eventually stop trading (or the system may stop loss at 20%, 30%, 40%, etc.; if no fail-safe is in place, trading will stop when capital runs out). If the stop in trading is “manually” instituted by an individual, the decision to stop trading will be partly based on past experiences and their personal level of risk-tolerance (or the risk tolerance of the investors who’s money they are managing). Third, government regulation might enter the picture if public pressure (i.e., crowd psychology) forces the exchanges to change the rules of the game. This occurred when the Hunt brothers “cornered” the silver market in 1980; the futures exchange decided no new, open positions would be allowed in silver – only liquidation orders would be accepted for a while. The result was silver quickly collapsed in value. Even if trading is automated, humans initially decided if a trade is taken or not, how much risk is allowed on each trade (or tolerated overall for an account), how positions are entered, stops placed, targets calculated, how many positions are taken per trade, how long a position is held, and whether trading continues as losses accumulate. When the creator’s goals, beliefs, financial limits and strategies are programmed, the trading system simply institutes predetermined human decisions. 

In conclusion, automated trading programs reflect the personal beliefs, financial capacity and goals of those involved in their creation. When hundreds or thousands of human-created trading systems interact in a free market, collectively they produce a more disciplined, fast-acting version of their human counter-parts. As a result, the individual psychology that went into the creation of each system will, collectively, produce price action that reflects mass human behavior – what wave theory is designed to identify and help predict.

پرسش و پاسخ با گلن نیلی-175

Frequently, in your Trading service you enter markets, move stops and exit positions inconsistent with your wave theory forecasts. Why?

ANSWER:

The primary goal of the NEoWave TRADING service is to make money for subscribers; the goal of the NEoWave FORECASTING service is to provide subscribers detailed predictions of future price action. Those are separate goals; as a result, my trading recommendations are sometimes out-of-sync with my wave forecasts. The rules required to make money trading are entirely different from those necessary to predict the future. As this fact became increasingly clear to me the last decade, I began to separate the techniques used in the Trading services from those used in the Forecasting services. 

At times, Wave theory can be great at predicting price action, but such forecasts may have little to do with how a market should be approached (trading should first focus on controlling risk, second on getting risk to zero and third on making money). Except under rare conditions, when major new trends are beginning or ending, Wave theory is not good at defining trading parameters (i.e., entries, stop placement, stop movement and targets). Even worse, when your focus is on where you think a market is going and how much money you will make from such a move, you may forget about managing risk. As a result, if the trade goes wrong, you could end up losing much more than originally planned. 

The recent upgrade to all NEoWave TRADING services is the latest in that process of separating the purpose of the Forecasting service from the Trading service. The NEW Trading service fully exploits NEELY RIVER trading technology, which focuses on trading strategy (i.e., money management, risk control, how positions should be entered, stops placed and exits determined). Neely River is never concerned with your beliefs about the future; it focuses on the things we have control over (i.e., when and where we enter, where we place stops, how much we risk, when and where we exit). Neely River techniques are founded in concrete price history (i.e., what we know about the past and what we can control, not what we don’t know and not what we can’t control). 

So, to answer your question, when trades in the Trading service do not appear in sync with wave projections in the Forecasting service, it is because I’m focused on controlling risk, reducing risk to zero and looking for current and past price behavior clues that allow us to move stops or exit a position at a profit. My focus in the Trading service is NOT on what I believe will occur in the future (based on a wave forecast) but what is best for preservation and enhancement of investment capital.

پرسش و پاسخ با گلن نیلی-174

Many analysts expect the bear market (starting in the year 2000) to end by 2014 or 2017. You expect this bear market to last until at least 2020 and possibly as far out as 2030. Why?

ANSWER:

The first thing to realize about markets (and wave theory) is that everything is relative. Most call the stock market advance of the last 3-years a “bull market,” but under wave theory it is a 3-year, counter-trend corrective rally. It may “look and feel” like a bull market, but whatever direction a market moves the fastest is its REAL trend. The “crash” of 2008-2009 is the REAL trend of the current stock market. The super slow, choppy, complex corrective nature of the rally since 2009’s low makes it clear the REAL trend of the stock market is still down. 

Based on extremely reliable NEoWave timing concepts, the time of any correction [when it follows an impulsive advance (wave-3 in this case, which took 19 years)] will exceed the time of the previous impulsion. Therefore, the correction starting in 2000 MUST last at least 20 years so it exceeds the time of wave-3 (I rounded up from 19). Since many corrections take 161.8% of the time of the prior impulsion, the correction starting in 2000 could last until 2030. 

Any time after 2020, the U.S. stock market is “allowed” to begin a new bull market, but it that may not begin until 2030. Before 2020, all rallies under NEoWave – no matter how large, time-consuming or elaborate – will be counter-trend and corrective in nature, NOT the start of a new, “true bull market.” That doesn’t mean a rally won’t “look and feel” like a bull market, but any rally before 2020 will be dwarfed by what the stock market does once the REAL bull market begins after 2020.